set_loop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (set loop region and toggle active state) but does not disclose potential side effects or constraints, such as whether the loop is relative to song position or if it affects playback. This is adequate for a simple setter but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a usage sentence, then a parameter list. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary verbiage. The key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a relatively simple tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, typical use case, and parameter semantics. It is complete for the complexity level, though it could mention edge cases or prerequisites. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions, so the tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: 'start: Loop start position in beats', 'length: Loop length in beats', 'enabled: True to enable looping, False to disable.' This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type information, though it could be more detailed (e.g., absolute vs relative start).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Set the Arrangement view loop region and toggle whether it's active.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_locator or clear_arrangement_clips. The additional context about previewing sections reinforces its unique role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Useful for previewing specific sections of the arrangement (e.g. just the drop, just the build).' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would warrant a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.